Glendale DRB returns modern Stewerton Way home for redesign, citing monumental entry and massing

The Glendale Design Review Board on Feb. 12 returned a proposed two‑story, 4,788‑square‑foot single‑family home at 920 Stewerton Way for redesign, citing concerns that the project’s entry massing and parapet make the house appear “monumental” from the street.

Case planner Wyatt Berger told the board the project would demolish a 1,950‑square‑foot 1974 house and replace it with a two‑story home and a detached 690‑square‑foot, three‑car garage. Berger said staff’s primary concerns are the building’s massing and a “monumental entryway,” and recommended conditions to step back the second story, reduce parapet height and limit exterior lighting.

Project architect Aramal Ajayajan defended the design as an intentional contemporary composition that uses the site’s slope to locate a lower‑level garage and create terraces, retractable glazing and an inward‑facing living sequence. “By cutting a parapet, you know, we’re not gonna be doing any good service to the look of architecture,” Ajayajan said, adding that trimming key elements would risk the building’s integrity. He also said many of the staff conditions were accepted, but that he disagreed that the first four conditions should be required as written.

Multiple board members acknowledged the design’s strengths but said the north/east entry volumes and tall parapet read as too heavy at the street. “It looks kind of corporate, you know, like a bank,” Board member Walsh said, identifying the entry’s verticality and parapet as the primary issues. Several board members said stepping the second story back on the north and east facades by roughly 3–4 feet and reducing the visual prominence of the parapet or roof element would help the house relate to the neighborhood without necessarily eliminating the double‑height lobby.

The board also asked the applicant to reconsider the vertical glass panels that flank the entry, and to provide clearer material details (the architect described a fixed glass system with metal mullions clad in natural wood veneer on the exterior and noted a composite wood panel on one elevation). The planner clarified that the zone’s maximum building height and the site topography factored into the design choices.

After deliberation the board voted to return the project for redesign so the applicant and staff can refine conditions related to massing, entry scale and glazing. The motion to return for redesign was offered by Board member Lacroff and seconded by Board member Welch; roll call recorded affirmative votes and the motion carried.

Next steps: The applicant will work with staff to revise plans addressing the board’s clarified direction and return to the Design Review Board for further review. No date for the return hearing was set during the session.

Outcome: Motion to return for redesign — approved (vote recorded in meeting materials).